Submitted: January 16, 2019
from United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri - St. Louis
SMITH, Chief Judge, COLLOTON and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.
COLLOTON, CIRCUIT JUDGE.
Calzone seeks a ruling that the Missouri State Highway Patrol
is forbidden to stop and inspect his 54, 000-pound dump
truck, used in furtherance of his private commercial venture,
without probable cause. The district court denied his
request for declaratory and injunctive relief. We likewise
conclude that Calzone is a member of the closely regulated
commercial trucking industry, and that the patrol's
random stops and inspections of his truck would comport with
the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. We therefore affirm the
operates a dump truck in support of his horse and cattle
ranch, Eagle Wings Ranch. He holds a Missouri-issued
commercial driver's license, and his truck has
Missouri-licensed plates marking it as a 54, 000-pound
vehicle for "local" commercial use. A "local
commercial motor vehicle" includes "a commercial
motor vehicle whose property-carrying operations are confined
solely to the transportation of property owned by any person
who is the owner or operator of such vehicle to or from a
farm owned by such person . . .; provided that any such
property transported to any such farm is for use in the
operation of such farm." Mo. Rev. Stat. §
301.010(27). The license plate on Calzone's truck is
marked with the letter "F," designating it as a
vehicle used for farm or farming transportation operations.
See id. § 301.030(3).
Missouri state trooper stopped Calzone in June 2013 to
inspect his dump truck under a Missouri statute that
authorizes random roadside inspections of commercial motor
vehicles. See id. § 304.230. Calzone objected
to the stop and refused to allow the inspection. He later
filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking, among
other things, to enjoin the superintendent of the highway
patrol from authorizing and directing patrol officers to stop
and inspect his dump truck without individualized suspicion
that he failed to comply with state law. After an earlier
decision of this court, Calzone v. Hawley, 866 F.3d
866 (8th Cir. 2017), and a remand for further proceedings,
the only claim remaining on this appeal is one for
declaratory and injunctive relief against the superintendent.
Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments forbid the State to conduct
unreasonable searches and seizures. The traditional standard
of reasonableness in the context of a criminal investigation
requires a warrant and probable cause to believe that a
search will discover evidence of unlawful activity. See
Vernonia Sch. Dist. 47J v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646, 652-53
(1995). But in the case of commercial property that is
involved in a "closely regulated" industry whose
operation "poses a clear and significant risk to the
public welfare," City of Los Angeles v. Patel,
135 S.Ct. 2443, 2454 (2015), the property owner has a reduced
expectation of privacy, and a warrantless seizure and
inspection may be reasonable without an individualized
showing of probable cause. New York v. Burger, 482
U.S. 691, 699-700 (1987).
invoke this authority based on a state scheme governing a
closely regulated industry, the State must satisfy three
criteria: (1) the regulatory scheme advances a substantial
government interest; (2) warrantless inspections are
necessary to further the regulatory scheme; and (3) the rules
governing the inspections are a constitutionally adequate
substitute for a warrant, i.e., the rules must
provide notice that the property may be searched for a
specific purpose and must limit the discretion of the
inspecting officers. Calzone, 866 F.3d at 871.
Missouri law authorizes the state patrol to conduct
"random roadside examinations or inspections" of
commercial motor vehicles. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 304.230.1.
We have held that commercial trucking is a "closely
regulated" industry, United States v. Ruiz, 569
F.3d 355, 356-57 (8th Cir. 2009); United States v.
Mendoza-Gonzalez, 363 F.3d 788, 794 (8th Cir. 2004), and
that Missouri's regulatory scheme for the inspection of
commercial vehicles is constitutional on its face:
Missouri has a substantial interest in ensuring the safety of
the motorists on its highways and in minimizing damage to the
highways from overweight vehicles. Ruiz, 569 F.3d at
357 (citing cases); State v. Rodriguez, 877 S.W.2d
106, 109 (Mo. 1994). Given the transitory nature of
commercial trucks, United States v. Fort, 248 F.3d
475, 481 (5th Cir. 2001), and the difficulty of detecting
violations of the regulatory scheme by routine observation,
effective enforcement would be nearly impossible without
impromptu, warrantless searches. United States v.
Maldonado, 356 F.3d 130, 136 (1st Cir. 2004). The
challenged subsections are also a permissible substitute for
a warrant. They provide notice to commercial truck drivers of
the possibility of roadside inspection by a designated law
enforcement officer, and they limit the scope of the
officer's inspections to an examination solely for
regulatory compliance. See Ruiz, 569 F.3d at 357.
Calzone, 866 F.3d at 871.
Missouri regime regulates commercial motor vehicles operating
on state highways. Any "motor vehicle designed or
regularly used for carrying freight and merchandise"
must be registered as a commercial motor vehicle, and the
owner must pay an annual fee based on the vehicle's
weight. Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 301.010(9); see
id. § 301.030.3, 301.058.1. A commercial motor
vehicle may not be operated on certain streets, see
id. § 300.550, is subject to height, weight, and
length restrictions, see id. §§
304.170-304.230, and must undergo biennial safety
inspections. See id. § 307.350.1. Missouri also
has incorporated a subset of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations into its statutory scheme for any vehicle that is
defined as a "commercial motor vehicle" under
federal law. See id. § 307.400.1. The
applicable regulations govern licensing, safety, required
parts and accessories, and transportation of hazardous
materials. See 49 C.F.R. §§ 391-397.
Missouri patrol officers have authority to conduct random
roadside examinations or inspections to determine compliance
with the governing rules. See Mo. Rev. Stat. §
304.230.1, .2, .7.
asserts that he is exempt from the lion's share of these
regulations, so he is not part of the "closely
regulated" industry, and the Missouri inspection scheme
is therefore unconstitutional as applied to him. He contends
that his truck is exempt from all of the federal regulations,
because he operates his truck only within Missouri, while the
federal definition of "commercial motor vehicle" is
a vehicle over 10, 000 pounds that is "used on a highway
in interstate commerce." 49 C.F.R. § 390.5
(emphasis added). The Missouri statute, however, makes it
unlawful to operate any "commercial motor vehicle,"
unless the vehicle complies with the federal regulations,
"whether intrastate transportation or
interstate transportation." Mo. Rev. Stat. §
307.400.1 (emphasis added). The state statute thus expands
the federal definition of "commercial motor
vehicle" to encompass vehicles that are engaged only in
"intrastate transportation" and thus only in
intrastate commerce. Calzone's proposed interpretation
cannot be squared with the structure of the state statute.
Section 307.400.5 creates an exception to application of the
federal regulations for certain commercial motor vehicles
that are "operated in intrastate commerce to transport
property" and weigh 26, 000 pounds or less. If Calzone
were correct that § 307.400.1 already excepted
all vehicles that are operated in intrastate
commerce, then the narrower exception of § 307.400.5
would be unnecessary.
also argues that he is exempt from complying with the federal
regulations because he is not a "motor carrier"
within the meaning of the regulations. Citing a definition
from an inapplicable federal statute, he contends that the
meaning of "motor carrier" is limited to persons
who provide transportation for compensation, see 49
U.S.C. § 13102(14), and does not extend to one who
transports his own commercial property. But the definition of
"motor carrier," for purposes of the federal safety
regulations that are incorporated by the Missouri statute, is
"a for-hire motor carrier or a private motor
carrier." 49 C.F.R. § 390.5 (emphasis added);
see 49 U.S.C. §§ 13102(15), 31502(b). A
"private motor ...